C.S. Lewis and Sola Scriptura?

[GKC]

I understand the point you are trying to convey.
Just for common understanding, let me know if any of these are not true:

• He confessed regularly at some point to a catholic priest
• He believed in purgatory, Sacraments and prayer for the dead
• He did not believe in Biblical inerrancy
• He received the Catholic Sacrament of extreme unction before he died.
• Many atheists and Protestants who read his books converted to Catholicism.

Yes to all. And that is what being an Anglo-Catholic, or even what being an Anglican, means, to some of them.

He confessed to an Anglican priest (and received absolution) , received the sacrament of extreme unction from an Anglican priest, when he died, and lived and died an Anglican, following his return to the faith in 1929.

GKC

 

[MarcoPolo]

As you quote it, I think Christensen’s dichotomy is too sharp. Lewis would have agreed that Scripture functions through the Church. Whether that puts him outside the “Reformation tradition” is arguable.

Here is the page from Christensen’s book in question.

 

[Contarini]

Tolkien said that it was Lewis’ pride in his ethnic- cultural heritage (Orange Irish) that kept him Anglican.

Tolkien had a lot of very odd and cranky opinions which are not necessarily based in fact.

One could with much more justification say that it was Tolkien’s devotion to the memory of his mother that kept him Catholic. This may be true to some extent, but it doesn’t affect the legitimacy of his theological views. Same with Lewis. There are plenty of theological reasons why Lewis remained Anglican and never became Catholic. Some Catholics just can’t handle the fact that Lewis found the claims of Rome unconvincing. Why not just accept that Lewis was one fallible human who didn’t agree with you on everything?

Ediwn

 

[Contarini]

Here is the page from Christensen’s book in question.

As it stands, I think it’s overly simplistic. No doubt there’s some sense in which Lewis would have said that Scripture is its own interpreter (i.e., I’m sure he would have said that the first place you go to shed light on one passage in Scripture is the broader Scriptural context), but to identify him with that idea without qualification is very dubious.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

According to Mary and Steve van Nattan, ‘CS Lewis: Satan’s Wisest Fool’:

Indeed, he may have been a Catholic for some time before his death. He believed in purgatory and prayed for the dead. He went to a priest regularly for confession (C.S. Lewis: A Biography , p. 198). He received the sacrament of extreme unction on July, 16th, 1963 (p. 301), a sacrament that was officially ministered only to Roman Catholics at that time.

That’s nonsense. Why are you quoting a pair of ignorant, bigoted fundamentalist Protestants? Why do you trust them? Do you trust what they say about Catholicism as well?

Anglo-Catholics would certainly have ministered extreme unction in the 1960s, and perhaps for as much as a century before that.

As for validity, my point was that the Catholic Church does not regard Anglican orders as valid. Therefore, sacraments such as confession and extreme unction, which require a priest, are regarded by the Catholic Church as presumptively invalid within Anglicanism (though there are complications stemming from the involvement of “Old Catholic” bishops in some Anglican consecrations).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The reason I brought up grace and sacraments was because of those central issues between the Catholic Church and Reformation.

But not the existence of sacraments or the fact that they are means of grace. Rather, the question was how sacraments are means of grace.

Luther argued against these things based on Scripture,

Luther never argued against the proposition that grace comes through the sacraments. What basis do you have for this claim?

And do you remember which letter that was in which Lewis spoke of sound interpreters?

Not off the top of my head, though he expressed similar sentiments in a number of places. My copy of the selected letters is at home, and I don’t own the complete letters (though I have read most of them).

Edwin

 

[GKC]

But not the existence of sacraments or the fact that they are means of grace. Rather, the question was how sacraments are means of grace.

Luther never argued against the proposition that grace comes through the sacraments. What basis do you have for this claim?

Not off the top of my head, though he expressed similar sentiments in a number of places. My copy of the selected letters is at home, and I don’t own the complete letters (though I have read most of them).

Edwin

Marco,

I own the collected/Hooper edited volumes and the selected letters that Warnie edited. I recall similar sentiments, too, but not exactly where. If I have time, I will look.

OTOH, as to sanctification, I looked at the Hooper collections at lunch. Vol II, p. 490 has something relevant. A letter written 5/26/49 addresses sanctification, and says much what we have already observed. Lewis says that sanctification is "…the process of ‘Christ being formed in us’… and references THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. Further, he says that “No doubt sanctification would be the correction both of our congenital or original sinfulness and of our particular sins”. He makes a comparison of sanctification to a doctor assessing whether he as the patient has a simple or compound fracture, and proceeding accordingly. And he makes the same point he makes in LETTERS TO MALCOM, that the process will hurt, and must be endured.

And are you familiar with Will Vaus’ MERE THEOLOGY?

GKC

 

[steve_b]

Yes to all. And that is what being an Anglo-Catholic, or even what being an Anglican, means, to some of them.

He confessed to an Anglican priest (and received absolution) , received the sacrament of extreme unction from an Anglican priest, when he died, and lived and died an Anglican, following his return to the faith in 1929.

GKC

I’ll bet you even have signed copies of all his works.

Just dropping by to say Hi to an old friend.

off the topic a bit, Some GKC wit

Being a man of great girth

During World War I a lady in London asked why he wasn’t ‘out at the Front’; he replied, 'Madam If you go round to the side, you will see that I am."

On another occasion he remarked to his friend Geo Bernard Shaw “‘To look at you, anyone would think there was a famine in England.’ Shaw retorted, 'To look at you, anyone would think you caused it.”

According to his autobiography, he and Shaw played cowboys in a silent movie that was never released.

I would have loved to be in THAT corral to see that. Do you by chance have a copy in your library?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Luther never argued against the proposition that grace comes through the sacraments. What basis do you have for this claim?

I meant his view of grace as covering/forensic, sorry.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And are you familiar with Will Vaus’ MERE THEOLOGY?

I did come across that on Thursday looking for resources. Link to most of the book here. I quickly noticed specious statements like on p. 170 that Lewis rejected the “Roman Church” where it differed from “universal tradition” and “apostolic Christianity” with not much of an accompanying argument. So I didn’t think much of the author.

 

[GKC]

I did come across that on Thursday looking for resources. Link to most of the book here. I quickly noticed specious statements like on p. 170 that Lewis rejected the “Roman Church” where it differed from “universal tradition” and “apostolic Christianity” with not much of an accompanying argument. So I didn’t think much of the author.

While perhaps not as well phrased as it might be, that is my view of Lewis’ position, as Lewis himself stated, WRT certain RCC doctrines. Lyle Dorsett reported a conversation he had with George Sayer, in which Sayer related a conversation he had been part of with Lewis and Robert Havard, Lewis’ personal physician. Sayer and Havard were both RC and Havard was pressing Lewis on converting. Lewis’ final comments then, with respect to the doctrine of a personal charism of infallibilty possessed by the Pope, and some Marian doctrines, were pretty much as Vaus said. IIRC. But I’ll take another look at Vaus; the book just caught my eye while looking over the LETTERS, and I thought it might be of use.

Also, while Fr. Walter Adams, Lewis’ spritual director and confessor for 12 years, had a great effect on moving him toward the Anglo-Catholic position, Lewis did express an opinion that he was too near some Roman doctrines, in a few areas, for Lewis to follow. The assumption was these were Marian doctrines.

I assume you are using Holmer. What about Lyle Dorsett’s SEEKING THE SECRET PLACE?

GKC

 

[MarcoPolo]

I assume you are using Holmer. What about Lyle Dorsett’s SEEKING THE SECRET PLACE?

Thanks GKC, I am not familiar with either of these two. My original goal here was to determine if I was off base in finding Christensen’s comment that Lewis was firmly with the “Reformation” regarding Scripture, which he does not say of any other historical period.

 

[VARC]

Thanks for the correction. CS Lewis did not convert because he was already a Catholic as you concluded.

Exactly. He was an Anglo-Catholic not a Roman Catholic. He never accepted the claims of the papacy.

 

[GKC]

Thanks GKC, I am not familiar with either of these two. My original goal here was to determine if I was off base in finding Christensen’s comment that Lewis was firmly with the “Reformation” regarding Scripture, which he does not say of any other historical period.

Ok.

Holmer is often quoted, IIRC, by Christensen. The book is C.S. LEWIS: THE SHAPE OF HIS THOUGHT.

And I went back and looked a Vaus’ p. 170. If I understood what you wrote, re: Vaus, then I must admit I don’t understand what you wrote. Certainly the letter Vaus references is found in Vol II of the collected Letters, pp. 645-647. And Vaus paraphrases it so closely it’s almost a direct quote. The only thing I find out of place is the date, it’s not 9 May, but 8 May.

So I’m at a lose to understand in what sense it lacks an accompanying argument, or is specious. It is certainly what Lewis thought, and said, in other places, as well.

But, anyway, good luck with the paper.

GKC

 

[Reepicheep]

It’s funny but one of the reasons I like Lewis is because some of his writings are very catholic!

This is true for me also.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So I’m at a lose to understand in what sense it lacks an accompanying argument, or is specious.

What I meant was unimpressive was the author’s assumption that the “Roman Church” disagreed with apostolic Christianity or tradition at all.

 

[GKC]

What I meant was unimpressive was the author’s assumption that the “Roman Church” disagreed with apostolic Christianity or tradition at all.

Ah, so. But that was precisely Lewis’ point, in the letter in question. Not Vaus’, though he probably agreed.

GKC

 

[Chancellare]

True enough. But many others didn’t!

Edwin

And none to Anglican?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Ah, so. But that was precisely Lewis’ point, in the letter in question. Not Vaus’, though he probably agreed.

GKC

Very good. Thank you very much, both you and Edwin for your helping me out here, and anyone else who provided insight!

 

[GKC]

Very good. Thank you very much, both you and Edwin for your helping me out here, and anyone else who provided insight!

You are very welcome and good luck with your work.

GKC